"Beat the Press" update

Beat The Press Corection (5.50 / 2)

The staff of Greater Boston made an error on the Dec. 8 "Beat The Press" program in reporting on bloggers accepting money from political campaigns. Reporter John Carroll believed he was quoting MyDD founder Jerome Armstrong as writing that he was actually the person behind several online pseudonyms, including Scott Shields.  The blogger's comments were satirical, a fact that was not evident to Carroll as he read the posting.  Carroll believed he was quoting Armstrong accurately. Many people have written to tell us that with a little checking we could have determined that the individuals referred to in the posting are actual bloggers. We should have checked those facts, and we regret not doing so.

Mark Mills
Executive Producer
Greater Boston, WGBH

---

by: MarkMills @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 13:43:41 PM CST

Well, it is now conclusively proven that liberals have no sense of humor! (0.00 / 0)

BTW, Mr. Mills, you do most of the work on the Greater Boston blog - keep it up!

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 13:47:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I beg to differ. (0.00 / 0)

If you saw the Last Laugh 2006 with Lewis Black & especially Patton Oswald last night, it was pretty funny. The montage at the beginning where they parodied REM's "End of the World - As we know it" managed to work in Cheney shooting his friend in the face, twice.

And you had to be laughing your a$$ off when Rob Cordry did his 'Mark Foley" like campaign commercial. Hilarious!

I would agree that WGBH would have been better served by letting Carrol poke some fun at himself while apologizing for his errors, but Liberals not funny? Nah, Jon Stewart & Colbert aren't exactly the John Birch Society. Well, Colbert maybe. ok

---

by: mojoman @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:10:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey Mark (5.67 / 3)

It wasn't a satirical post by Armstrong either. But the idea of looking at the author of a post seems to elude some people.

The post was by Jonathan Singer.

You can't even get the retraction right??

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 16:16:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

By the by (0.00 / 0)

You shouldn't be moving comments around as this commenter is saying you are (and in reading the comments, which make no sense in that thread, I think you are). You know, we bloggers have ethics, both in our posts and in the use of the technology. Maybe you should convene a blogger ethics panel and listen in to learn something.

That last sentence was part sarcasm, just to be clear.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 16:20:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The hell...? (5.00 / 1)

Do these so-called "professional journalists" have ANY freaking clue about blogging?

They ARE moving the comments around

The "increase transparency" part made diet coke come out of my nose.

Beyond 495 - Reality-based Commentary With a True Blue Perspective
Deval Patrick has a posse.

---

by: Susan M @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 22:06:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Um... (6.00 / 2)

Did they realize they made all those people calling for a retraction look like asses, because suddenly their comments were moved and were calling for a retraction in a POST that had the retraction in it, making them seem like they were either idiots or jerks?

A little common sense would go a long way, folks. It's honestly NOT rocket science.

It confused the heck outta me, for instance, when I was reading that post with the (sort of) retraction. Until I read someone complaining about how comments had been moved around.

Left in Lowell: cuz why read the Lowell Sun if you don't have to? ;)

---

by: Lynne @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:13:51 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Right on taret, Lynne! (0.00 / 0)

I have no problem with copy/pasting responses to make a more readable thread - but ALTERING THE TIME STAMP is inexcusable.  And the fact that they don't understand WHY speaks vloumes.

Oh, and for GB - leave the original posts alone, and say, Hey!  Come read the well-organized thread!  But let people access the originals as well.  This isn't like deciding if you want to print that extra page, or broadcast that extra minute - we have all the room in the world for redundancy here!

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 11:52:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

got the detail, missed the big picture (5.00 / 1)

This partial correction isn't very satisfying, in light of the false accusations that were made against the major liberal blogs.  MyDD and Daily Kos, which were singled out, have never had a case where any of the frontpage bloggers were being paid by a campaign and did not disclose it.  Jerome Armstrong, who was singled out, in fact has gone further, by not blogging at all on MyDD whenever he's on a campaign payroll.

Personally, I think that's unnecessary - when I was working for John Bonifaz as his campaign blogger, I didn't stop posting on Blue Mass Group, I just made sure to add a note to any of my posts that related to that race informing people that I was Bonifaz's campaign blogger.  Now, I'm not one of the Blue Mass Group frontpagers, just a user, and they get to decide which of my posts get promoted, so it's not the same situation as Jerome was in with MyDD, but I still think he could've ethically continued blogging there as long as he made his relationship to campaigns clear.

Whatever you think of that, however, the point is that none of these major liberal bloggers have been "masquerading", as your piece accused them of doing.  None of them have been hiding, and you suggested that a lot of them are.

Sure, the biggest most outrageous gaffe was that these accusations were supported with "evidence" that even a cursory, half-hearted few minutes of research would have shown was not true (all it would've taken was reading the comments on the very post that the piece quoted!).  But a correction that addresses only that, and ignores the fact that the main storyline was false, slanderous, and supported by no real evidence, is not much of a correction.

---

by: Cos @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 12:45:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Cos - it took all the mystery out of my presence when I put the fact that I am a Republican in my SIGNATURE. (0.00 / 0)

Before that, I got responses like - are you MAD????

You were always scrupulous in mentioning your Bonifaz ties, and even a casual reader know of your involvement, because of your careful stipulations.

I wish I knew if a major newspaper chain funds John Carroll's university chair, or if Emily Rooney owns CBS stock, or if....


Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 13:19:35 PM CST

[ Parent ]

What a surprise (5.33 / 3)

I checked as the result of the recent bru-ha.  Until now, I assumed MyDD was a porn site.

---

by: gary @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:23:20 PM CST

The question is, (0.00 / 0)

were you disappointed by what you saw (or didn't see)?

---

by: David @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:34:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

It's hardly MyDDD (0.00 / 0)

---

by: gary @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 14:56:21 PM CST

[ Parent ]

GOP porn (6.00 / 1)

Here's what you're looking for:
http://www.youtube.c...

---

by: mojoman @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 15:48:19 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually, mojoman, (6.00 / 1)

when it comes to Republican porn, I think this is more like it.

---

by: Sharoney @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 17:22:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

LOL (0.00 / 0)

Thanks for that link.

"We're the coalition of the willing"

Too funny! Ha!

---

by: mojoman @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 18:03:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

On Air Correction (0.00 / 0)

Emily Rooney just gave the following statement to close out tonight's Greater Boston:

And finally tonight, we made an error on last Friday's Beat the Press program during a report on bloggers accepting money from political campaigns.  Reporter John Carroll quoted a MyDD posting saying that MyDD founder Jerome Armstrong was the person behind several online pseudonyms.  that posting was meant as satire, and many people have written to tell us that with a little checking, we could have determined that the individual names referred to were actual bloggers.  We should have checked, and we regret not doing so.

I'm looking forward to what they have to say on Friday.

.08 Acres
.0000016% of Massachusetts Political Commentary

---

by: sco @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 18:42:53 PM CST

I missed it - how tight WERE her teeth clenched? (0.00 / 0)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 13:20:47 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Not so much (0.00 / 0)

If anything, it seemed like she was amused by the whole situation.

I guess we'll find out on Friday.  My hunch is that it turns into a "those mean bloggers are attacking poor John Carroll.  How was he supposed to know?"  Expect liberal use of "over the top" during that segment...

.08 Acres
.0000016% of Massachusetts Political Commentary

---

by: sco @ Tue Dec 12, 2006 at 13:28:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Dan Kennedy checks in (0.00 / 0)

...and apparently this controversy will be covered as one of the stories on next Friday's show.

---

by: paul@01852 @ Mon Dec 11, 2006 at 19:32:33 PM CST